future is loans from EPL

[rbr 1,247]

Maybe just maybe we should give Craig Mulholland and his staff a wee bit of time and maybe a couple of years to get their methodology in place , he's been there less than 6 months , we still have no recognised scouting in place for first team players never mind youths , chill everyone

[Rousseau 9,463]

I expect the UEFA will make a rule change soon to limit the number of players any club can have and then loan out. Chelsea had 30 players out on loan last season, that's farcical, in total there are close to 160 players registered to EPL sides out on loan in other countries this season. I expect this stockpiling of players to be outlawed by UEFA in the near future, it's both anti-competitive and holding back player development. No club should have more than half a dozen players out on loan at one time and no club should have any more than three loan players in their squad in my opinion.

 

Loaning several players to one club is farcical -- for the side receiving the loanees --, but I don't think having 30 out on loan is farcical. Italian sides have much the same number of players out on loan, and sometimes more; although some are joint-ownership situations. It can be considered anti-competitive, but if one is developing the players, one is entitled to retain them and loan them out to gain a better player later, or simply to make a little money. Moreover, surely it improves player development?

[craig 5,199]

Maybe just maybe we should give Craig Mulholland and his staff a wee bit of time and maybe a couple of years to get their methodology in place , he's been there less than 6 months , we still have no recognised scouting in place for first team players never mind youths , chill everyone

 

The youth department DO have a scouting network, have had for years. 1st team scouting has been non-existent but not youths.

[rbr 1,247]

The youth department DO have a scouting network, have had for years. 1st team scouting has been non-existent but not youths.

Yes but it's been recognised that it's not fit for purpose and needs completely overhauled

[craig 5,199]

Yes but it's been recognised that it's not fit for purpose and needs completely overhauled

 

At the youth department ? Not so. The scouting network covers all of Scotland and NI and they recruit very well for the younger age groups.

[rbr 1,247]

At the youth department ? Not so. The scouting network covers all of Scotland and NI and they recruit very well for the younger age groups.

Not from what I've heard , there is a feeling that they want an change in the type of player based more on ability than size , that's a fundamental change in direction

[craig 5,199]

Not from what I've heard , there is a feeling that they want an change in the type of player based more on ability than size , that's a fundamental change in direction

 

It may be a change in direction but it most certainly doesn't mean that the youth scouting department isn't fit for purpose. You are ignoring the fact that physical size was Sinclair's type of player....

 

I personally know the youth scouting coordinator (took on the role last year) and know for FACT that physical size means nothing to him. His approach has always been about technical ability.

 

Both he and Mulholland are on the same page and always have been. Indeed, when I was with him at a Rangers tournament a couple of years ago he pointed a kid out to me that was at Celtic.... Told me he would love to have him at Rangers.... The kid was a U15 but the size of a U12.

 

So not sure where your info is coming from but it is being very harsh towards those currently tasked with youth scouting.

 

Further, what you have heard is common knowledge in that Mulholland has a technical approach whereas Sinclair had a far more physical approach.

Edited September 7, 2015 by craig

[rbr 1,247]

No I agree Craig , I'm not talking about ripping up the current youth scouting dept , I'm all for giving them a chance , maybe my use of language was wrong , when I said not fit for purpose I was talking about Sinclair's methods and player types , my bad

[craig 5,199]

No I agree Craig , I'm not talking about ripping up the current youth scouting dept , I'm all for giving them a chance , maybe my use of language was wrong , when I said not fit for purpose I was talking about Sinclair's methods and player types , my bad

 

If talking about Sinclair then I doubt any would disagree with you rbr. I think we are all glad he is gone. The people currently in place definitely prefer a technical player over a physical one.

[JohnMc 2,482]

Loaning several players to one club is farcical -- for the side receiving the loanees --, but I don't think having 30 out on loan is farcical. Italian sides have much the same number of players out on loan, and sometimes more; although some are joint-ownership situations. It can be considered anti-competitive, but if one is developing the players, one is entitled to retain them and loan them out to gain a better player later, or simply to make a little money. Moreover, surely it improves player development?

 

There are no guarantees it improves the player's development but on balance I think it's better than playing under-age or reserve football. The issue isn't so much are loans good for a player though it's are they good for the sport, that's a different question. Take the example of Courtois, the Chelsea keeper. A lot of people would look at his case and say the loan system works, but I disagree. Chelsea bought him from Genk in Belgium and he played three seasons on loan at Athletico Madrid before rejoining Chelsea. Had he remained at Genk for those three years then the standard of Belgian football would have improved as it would have had better players in it. On top of that Madrid get a player without having to pay the going rate for him, giving them an advantage over their rivals. Lastly Chelsea get to take a punt, safe in the knowledge that he costs them very little in the grand scheme if things and he might work out.

 

The reality is very, very few of those 30 odd Chelsea players out on loan will ever make their first team. That being the case I think they should be employed by and playing for a side where they can make the first team. That way their employer must invest both time and money into developing them safe in the knowledge that investment is worthwhile if the player improves. That's not the case with loan players, there is no long term planning with them, only short term gain and that's not really in anyone's interest. Football is a transient business at the best of times but loaning players out by the dozen simply exacerbates this. No one will convince me that Scott Allen or Islam Feruz's careers were improved by joining big English sides and being sent on loan for almost their entire time there. They'd both have been better off staying at their original clubs and moving when developed to a level where ready to take the next step. The players would have benefited from that, their developing clubs would have benefited and the club buying them would have benefited too.

 

Money talks, I get that, but the balance in football is so skewed in the favour of a small number of very wealthy clubs already that allowing them to factory farm players on a percentages basis simply further diminishes competition and will ultimately disillusion supporters of clubs outside that elite.